According to Ken Rockwell, DRTV and another forum, if you don't want the aperture of it, the EF 50mm F/1.2L is not worth getting and it's not all that optically better, my images (from a technical POV) won't change much.

The f/1.2 is built for f/1.2. So if you don't need that, why not look at the Canon f/1.4 (and hope stories about its AF dying are not too accurate) or the Sigma (enjoy the focus shifts). The Zeiss is about as expensive as the f/1.2 but you have to like manual focus, where if you do you might even go as far as getting an adapted Nikon?

All in, first figure out where the f/1.8 might be holding you back, then look at fixing that.

I've been thinking about getting another 50mm f/1.4 for a while myself. I also have the f/1.8 which I don't like using due to its focus system. I know I have the Zeiss makro too, but that's MF and sometimes I just want to point and shoot so personally I think the Canon f/1.4 is the best overall balance. Not a huge upgrade but all the little things set it apart from the f/1.8. The Sigma's focus shift puts me right off.

I have owned and used the 1.8 and 1.4 canons. The 1.4 has better build quality and focusing. It is very soft @ 1.4, but probably better @ 1.8 than the 1.8. The bokeh is nicer (8 blades vs 5.) I have no experiance with the 1.2, but have read it is the best at lowest apertures.

However, i sold both to get a 2.8 70-200 zoom. I just couldn't find any uses for a wide apeture 50mm on a crop sensor camera. (I own a 17-55mm 2.8 zoom which sits on my camera 95% of the time.)

If you pixel peep, the 1.4 will probably give you better results at 1.8 and lower than the 1.8.However, that's really not the main reason to upgrade if you were to do so.The image quality and sharpness is probably not going to be much/enough of an improvement.

Here are four reasons why the 1.4 is better than the 1.8:1) It lets in more light due to being an f/1.4 lens.2) Faster Focusing, and quieter, with a Micro-Motor USM.3) Even though it has a Micro-Motor USM, it stil has full time manual (FTM) focusing capability.4) Build quality.

If these reasons are not sufficient to get an EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens, then I would not advise getting one.The EF 50mm f/1.8 I or II is the best bang for buck lens Canon makes.

I am not aware of any other lens which perform as well in relation to how much you spend.

I read so many recommendations about the nifty fifties, and the merits of 50 mm primes that I bought the EF 50 f1.4 lens a year ago. On the relatively few occasions I have tried to use it, I have often been frustrated by the field of view. This is no fault of the lens which is undoubtedly a high quality piece of glass. I suspect that I have just become accustomed to the versatility of my zooms, especially the EF-S 15-85 on the 7D and the 24-105 on the 5DII. Or maybe I just don't take the kind of images that best suit a 50. The 50mm is always in my bag, but I am still struggling to justify its presence.

One of the main strengths for a 50mm is the low light capability.So how about you try to use it at f/2 in lower light and see what it does for you?

A prime can be challenging at first. It is not nearly as versatile as a zoom.The best way I can think of to figure out when to use a prime is to go out and just use it.Get use to using it in order to be able to better understand why people enjoy it.A lower light test might be just the thing as that is something your zooms will not be able to do.However, it can be challenging to focus properly at f/1.4.

I don`t actually like that focal length that much, I would rather have a 30 1.4 like the Sigma for example.For me 50 on a cropped body is either not tight enough or wide enough, doesn`t suit me all that much.